1 See: Colorado Advisory Opinion 2008-3; Connecticut Informal Advisory Opinion 2008-23 Illinois Advisory Opinion 08-1; Utah Informal Advisory Opinion 99-6; U.S. Advisory Opinion 108 (2008).
2 See: Illinois Advisory Opinion 98-1, South Carolina Opinion 23-2006, and Florida Judicial Ethics Opinion 2004-14. This is to be contrasted with the ethical restrictions that apply in “one-on-one” interaction between judges and law enforcement. In those situations, judges should not suggest how officers should do their jobs, how to succeed in the judge’s court, how to obtain convictions, or how to conduct various law enforcement functions. See; Arizona Advisory Opinion 03-8; Virginia Advisory Opinion 01-4); and New York Advisory Opinion 06-15. South Carolina Advisory Opinion 22-2006 does approve of a judge teaching a class to police officers on driving under the influence, driving with unlawful alcohol concentration, and criminal domestic violence as long as the judge does not offer any personal opinions.
3 Judicial Canon 3 Rule 3.2 Commentary provides:  Judges possess special expertise in matters of law, the legal system, and the administration of justice, and may properly share that expertise with governmental bodies and executive or legislative branch officials. In some states it is ethically permissible for judges to draft or originate legislation dealing with substantive law (See Texas Judicial Ethics Opinion 76). Judges are reminded however that dealing with legislators is generally ethically permissible so long as the judge’s activities do not (1) cast reasonable doubt on the judge’s capacity to act impartially as a judge; (2) demean the judicial office; or (3) interfere with the proper performance of judicial duties. ) (See Florida Opinion 98-13)
4See Florida Opinion 93-23. For an opinion to the contrary see New Mexico Opinion 02-05. New Mexico, however did approve of a full-time judge facilitating, for profit, drug, alcohol, treatment, and truancy classes at a local high school after business hours. (See New Mexico Opinion 10-08) A number of states have followed Illinois’ lead in approving a judge’s service on the board of a non-profit “drug court professionals” association. The association includes prosecutors, defense lawyers, rehabilitation counselors, educators, law enforcement personnel, probation officers and others interested in the operation of Drug Court. (See Illinois opinion 1-10)